Re: [ga-rules] RE: [ga] Sorry for the questions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Darryl and all,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: owner-ga-rules@dnso.org On Behalf Of Eric Dierker
> |> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 5:32 PM
> |> To: dassa@dhs.org
> |> Cc: [Ga-Rules]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga-rules] RE: [ga] Sorry for the questions
> |>
> |>
> |> below,
> |>
> |> Dassa wrote:
> |>
> |> >                       i wrote
> |> > |>
> |> > |> thank you dassa as your are obviously right from your point of
> |> > |> view.  I was not referring to swear words and pornography as I do
> not know what
> |> > |> that is until I see it.
> |> >
> |> > Your reference was to be able to post R-rated like material.  The main
> |> > criteria for R-rated criteria are adult concepts, bad language, sexual
> |> > references and violence.  Adult concepts are acceptable, the others
> are
> |> > not.
> |> >
> |>
> |> I like your term bad language it connotes improper grammer and
> |> yes that is what I was banned for along with personal attacks. (all
> within the
> |> rules-that is my banning of course, sorry again) But you are also right
> about
> |> adult concepts. So my question was can I just post certain rants on the
> |> full-without boundaries?
>
> You could but then there would only be a very limited number of people who
> would see it and that was not the intention for the use of the list.

 Indeed you are correct here as far as this goes as stated.  However there
are a number of methods that can take advantage of certain "Holes" in the
DNSO security, or rather lack there or that can make just posting to the
ga-full very full featured, if you will pardon the pun!

>
>
> |> >
> |> > |> I was referring to calling a spade a spade even if it may be seen
> as a personal attack.
> |> >
> |> > Why should personal attacks be acceptable on any list?  If what
> someone has
> |> > posted is incorrect we are free to post the correct information and
> point
> |> > out the other person was not correct in their post.  There is no need
> for
> |> > personal attacks, we are only interested in the messages, not the
> |> > messenger.
> |> >
> |>
> |> You are mistaken here.  Tell me one example of where in my posts I did
> not post
> |> my perception of the truth. Therein lies your fundamental problem.
>
> Sorry, your mistake.  I am not posting on this thread at a personal level.
> I have not given any thought to your posts with regards to this thread.

  Oh?  Than why are you posting in the "First Person" if not to delineate
a personal nature of your response here to Eric?

>
> However, personal perception unless substantiated is only an opinion.  If
> others do not share your opinion then you have a fundamental problem.

  Yes a fundamental problem perhaps, but not necessarily a serious or
significant problem.  And even the fundamentally of the problem is
a matter of both conjecture and measure....

>
>
> |> I say someone lied or deceived and I am banned, I say they act like bad
> assed
> |> intellectuals and I am banned.[note that one I insulted stood up for my
> right
> |> to insult him]  Sorry but that is my considered opine. So should I be
> banned
> |> from saying it- yes from your invited dinner table, not from a GA.
>
> Under the GA rules, yes.  I make no comment on the validity of the rules,
> they are in force however and must be upheld.

  I disagree that they must be upheld or even in force on a equal basis or
we would not be having these discussions...  As to "must be upheld"
is also of some doubt as well for the same reason...

>
>
> |> I believe we see eye to eye here it is just that you do not like my
> opinions.
> |> which is totally cool just please don't deny me from expressing them.
>
> Some I do agree with, others I don't.  I am not fond of your style in
> writing as it is difficult for me to read and understand but that is an
> issue I would deal with by either putting in the effort to read or posts or
> ignoring them.

  It is a shame that you are having some difficulty understanding Erics or
anyone's posts.  I guess I am fortunate that I do not suffer or am otherwise
hampered by such a restriction.  I do hope that you will take the time to
read every assembly members posts most closely as they may have
some value to you now or in the future.

>  You are free to express your opinions, however, as in life,
> there are rules that must be followed.  There are also consequences when
> your opinions or the way you state them upset others.  In real life, when a
> person is insulted they have a number of options to deal with it.  They can
> extract physical punishment or take legal action.

  I always as I believe is Eric ready and very willing to receive anyone's
service.  If the suggestion of violence in your response here is serious
I would also be willing to be available for such an attempt with the
understanding
that a response will no doubt ensue with equal if not superior vigor.  I hope
that such would never be a consideration of course, but I am always prepared
in case it should.

> On the GA mailing list,
> they can the offenders posting rights withdrawn.

  Sometimes.  And sometimes not or not for good reasons, as we have
seen far to many times now...  As such the DNSO GA and the DNSO in general
is loosing creditability and thereby damaging ICANN as a whole in kind.

>
>
> |> >
> |> > |> I would not sit at your family dinner table
> |> > |> and proclaim the outright thievery I have seen committed as it is
> distasteful to
> |> > |> many.  But I would not hesitate to call a liar a liar in an adult
> and proper
> |> > |> setting. on the GA we cannot do so, it is a personal attack.  The
> GA full is
> |> > |> without rules of such interpretation.
> |> >
> |> > The GA is not interested in the personalities or shouldn't be.  The
> content
> |> > and the outcomes are what is important.
> |>
> |> There again lies a truly fundamentally flawed reasoning in the
> |> GA. It is a really techno-politically correct to way that we do not care
> |> about peronalities but the truth rings true in two opposite directions.
> a) we ban
> |> people for personal attacks and b) we care so little about other
> |> person(alities) that we alienate while the BOD and Staff engraciate.
>
> I see fundamentally flawed reasoning behind your statements above.
> Personalities only enter into the equation as a means of easily determining
> if the content of the post is worth reading and may contain some useful
> data.

  For some this may be true, for others this may not be.  Therefore this
is only an opinion in and of itself as stated.

>  Some inference may be used to validate the data also.

  Yes in some instances on a case by case basis this also may be true.
But not on a regular basis if one is wise.

>  I'm not sure
> I understand what you mean by b).  I am not aware of any policies that
> alienate participants or any attempts to ingratiate the GA with the ICANN
> Board or staff.

  Well it has been mentioned on a number of occasions.  Of course you
may not agree, but than again this is yet another opinion, not a fact.
The facts are documented along with others opinions.  Those seem to
me, and a growing number of others that I have noticed, differ greatly
from yours here....  Therefore it seems that you have a "Fundamental
Problem"...

>
>
> |> Then I am sure you would like to see me post only to the GA full.
>
> No, I don't care where you post actually.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html